Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Maybe They will need more exclusive hotels to support the tiered membership/annual pass fees.
Originally Posted By Manfried This guy is an executive? He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what drives the business. I bet his contract won't be renewed when its up.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't fault them for building hotels, but when a high ranking executive of the company claims that WDW's primary growth will come from adding hotels, that certainly is worrisome." But he didn't say that. What he said was that the new off site properties will help drive new business to WDW. That isn't the same as saying their plan for attendance growth is now reliant on developing cruise ships and building resorts around the world.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Right, he didn't say that in this interview. He said it in the other article posted this week.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I found an Orlando Sentinel article that seems to give Al Weiss’ complete quote. Here’s what it said: <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2011/04/exec-says-non-park-projects-will-drive-traffic-to-disney-world.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c...rld.html</a> >>Behind Disney’s move into cruises, standalone resorts and other “flanker” ventures is a desire to capture money that existing theme-park customers — who typically visit a Disney park only once every few years — spend while on vacations in between those park visits. But Weiss said he expects such projects will also do the reverse: Attract non-Disney fans to the theme parks by introducing them to the brand in another manner. That’s particularly true, he added during an interview that followed his event remarks, of a project like Aulani, a massive resort that will include 359 hotel rooms and 481 Disney Vacation Club time-share units. New customers will “experience Aulani [and] they’ll realize, ‘You know what, I didn’t think a Disney vacation was quite like this,’” Weiss said. “It’s got a great spa. It’s got great restaurants. It’s got great entertainment throughout the resort. It’s got programming that is unparalleled, that they haven’t seen in other places before. And so I think when they see and experience that in a high quality way, I think they’re going to say, ‘You know what, I’m going to go do Walt Disney World’ or ‘I’m going to go do Disneyland’ or ‘I’m going to go do [Disneyland] Paris.’ And I think that keeps them not only with Disney, but I think it also motivates others to come that maybe didn’t consider a Disney vacation.”<< Again, what he seems to be saying is that the company hopes that the investment in new resort properties and cruise ship destinations will drive new customers to their existing theme park resorts, not that that they are “going to sit on our behinds and throw our hands up and give up on the park”, or that WDW's primary growth will come from building these places.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<This guy is an executive? He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what drives the business. I bet his contract won't be renewed when its up.>> The typical Disney P&R exec 'retires' when they are between 55-60. been that way since Eisner started running folks off in the mid-90s.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I always kind of disregard PR-speak anyway, but I don't know that Disney is entirely out to lunch on this. With changing demographics there are fewer families with young children to recruit for visits to WDW. So Disney needs to find some other way to do it. What they are doing makes some sense... get people who normally would not be theme park people to experience the Disney brand and hope they may try other offerings. The only problem I see with this is they need to have the quality of experience at WDW match the quality of a cruise on the Disney Dream. At this point, that is just not the case. For the first time in over a dozen years I'm forgoing the annual pilgrimage to WDW so that I can spend all of my DVC points on a Disney Cruise.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Can you share the link here please?>> I think HokieSkipper ist talking about this article: <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/the-daily-disney/os-disney-economic-impact-20110413,0,7480432.story" target="_blank">http://www.orlandosentinel.com...32.story</a> After talking about the study in the first half of the article it then continues about further developments at WDW. And after talking about the Art of Animation Resort it says: "Weiss said he expects such projects will be the primary driver of Disney's growth in Orlando in coming years."
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""When Roy died so did their theme parks and resorts."" Hardly. I always say Walt "dies" 4x. Roy, then Ron Dominguez and Jack Lindquist "retiring" (the beginning of the DL Dark Ages"), and the LAST vestige of Walt, Richard Nunis. This man was Walt The Sequel and i have heard colorful stories from WDW old timers on his hard core show standards and how he treated the CMs to live up to the Company's repuation. When he "left", the dam was open. There was noone to hold Pressler and Eisner back. After Nunis, WDI never smiled again.
Originally Posted By danyoung >What he said was that the new off site properties will help drive new business to WDW. That isn't the same as saying their plan for attendance growth is now reliant on developing cruise ships and building resorts around the world.< Thank you for this, Hans. I try not to be a Pollyanna by any means, but the amazing jumping to conclusions evidenced in this thread is mind-boggling. It's simply a no-brainer that Disney expects its new properties like its new ships and the Hawaii resort to drive more people into the Disney parks. How you move from that into "Disney sucks and they won't spend a dime on the parks and they're all idiots and should be shot" doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think it's smart for them to reach new customers via the cruise line and resorts like the one in Hawaii. While I think they're correct that many of those guests really don't have a trip to the theme parks on their radar, I am not sure that these things will generate that crossover audience Weiss is talking about in these quotes. Someone going to Hawaii, clearly, is looking for a very different kind of vacation than someone traveling to Orlando. It isn't as if the parks are these hidden things that don't get a lot of promotion. I think they have a much better shot at driving new business from the cruise line, but honestly, what percentage of people signing up for a Disney cruise have never been to one of the parks first? I'd be surprised if that number is very high. There are Disney "refusers" -- people that are just non-starters in terms of convincing them to visit a Disney destination of any kind. I have met people through the years that I'd place in this category -- they think the parks are "plastic" and lame and can't handle crowds at all.
Originally Posted By danyoung >There are Disney "refusers" -- people that are just non-starters in terms of convincing them to visit a Disney destination of any kind. I have met people through the years that I'd place in this category -- they think the parks are "plastic" and lame and can't handle crowds at all.< I think this is exactly the crowd that Weiss is talking about. Potential customers who for one reason or another have decided that the parks aren't for them. And perhaps after they see the way Disney runs a resort like Aulani, they might decide that the parks might not be such a bad thing after all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Potential customers who for one reason or another have decided that the parks aren't for them.<< Right. But the problem is that a Disneyland or WDW visit is one thing, an island resort is quite different. They're of two entirely different scales. It's sort of like expecting that just because someone paid to see a Touchstone Pictures movie they will somehow now be attracted to feature animation. They're very different things. Or someone who watches ESPN somehow becoming interested in the Disney Channel. Different niches. Maybe I'm dead wrong but I just don't see the connection. I think they're looking at two entirely different types of consumer. I think they'd have a better chance by building Aulani type resorts in other locations around the globe and building that following (timeshares, loyalty rewards, etc.)
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I'm with you Kar2oonMan. Two completely different target markets. I don't see the connection. I do see Disney expanding their properties outside the USA around the globe.
Originally Posted By danyoung >But the problem is that a Disneyland or WDW visit is one thing, an island resort is quite different. They're of two entirely different scales.< I think when a family is deciding on a vacation, there are definitely two different types - those who would go to a Disney park, and those who would go to Hawaii. But I think what Weiss is saying is that they've planned so much of the Disney "magic" into their new Aulani resort that it just might change some of those minds who previously weren't attracted to a Disney park. I can see especially families with kids feeling this effect, as the kids have a great Disney time and want to experience more of it, so they put the pressure on ol' Dad to maybe go to Florida next summer. Different things? Initially, yes. But Disney is hoping for some cross pollination. It remains to be seen if this is realistic or not.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Maybe I'm dead wrong but I just don't see the connection. I think they're looking at two entirely different types of consumer." How are families vacationing at WDW different from families vacationing in Hawaii? Disney's core customers are families with kids in tow.
